9/11 Shade of the Bush

General Douglas MacArthur quoted an old military ballad:
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

Now it seems that:
Good Generals never lie * , they just shade away.

My point is clear. Generals have a job to do. They take orders. Congress has a job to do. They declare war and fund government. If the General gives testimony, is he not sworn in? Apparently not. (This expert was ejected for suggesting it yesterday.) This does not mean that General Petreus lies or betrays us, he is only apparently doing his job. Will congress? **

And on my earlier point: The surge has worked. That is easy for them to say, when they have not said what working means, and only count "hard work". It was supposed to be political and the report was to measure it's success. There has been little political success ***, unless you count changing the subject from exit to drawdown. So it has been so successful, will we stay the course **** till next summer?

And we are quibbling over words and the honor of a general? Tough! If he can't stand the heat... Not to mention, the attention that MoveOn must generate, if people will read the lines, that the general has generated, one need not even read between the lines.

* & ** embedded recommended reads
*** this link notes 2006 as "Year of Transition".
**** speaking of time

Tea Party Down Grade

and the Undo- Everything House of Reprehensibles
(Note the counter-linkage or weaving of sources.)

Reading of the Day and relevant fn.

One great thing about Obama's primary victory is now we know that's not true. This is the modern Republican Party. It turns out they were the ones who adopted Malcolm X's slogan, "By any means necessary." As disgusted as I am with S&P's decision to downgrade U.S. debt, the ratings agency took the unusual step of calling out the GOP in its press release, predicting future fiscal peril "because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues," Sen. John Kerry was right to call it the "Tea Party downgrade" on "Meet the Press" Sunday. They have now made clear they'll wreck the economy as long as they can wreck Obama's presidency. And we have no way to know that Clinton's history with right-wing saboteurs would have enabled her to fight more effectively.

Simpson-Bowles and S&P Re: Revenue.

Hennessey’s assessment of Simpson-Bowles is even more puzzling. As I’ve noted before, Simpson-Bowles raised about $2 trillion in new revenues and cut defense spending by about $800 billion. The plan Obama proposed to Boehner raises half as much revenue and, from what I’m told, includes about half as much in defense cuts. It’s hard to see how that qualifies as "to the left" of Simpson-Bowles.

The fn. above discusses a narrative that is lacking in Obama's rhetoric. The actual recalcitrance of the Republican party, the lack of a filibuster proof congress, not to mention the media as we know it(Koch Brothers), argues more balanced narrative than Blame Obama. The Obama Inaugural was our calling.
(NFRY)

Candidate Obama was nuanced and President Obama is pragmatic and incremental, the message is clear.
[Hoist on our own Picard.]
[More Meet the Press.]

Green Span on Degree of Certainty: the only thing certain is change, and that the Right won't.

I mean Greenspan: "this deficit problem that is out there is a lot larger than we calculated. the actual numbers employed by those calculating the deficits are based on a level of economic activity, which we are not acheiving." Rather than translate IMHO the Greenspan quote, there is FIXING NEWS(as opposed to breaking) as the President addresses the downgrade now. (Remarks by the President: and previous remarks)

Bush Legacy?

A NEW TACK WITH TACT

Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.

Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.

Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".

This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.

We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.

ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.

[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]